We have been notified by Santa Monica’s department of Community & Cultural Services that the city has begun accepting applications for permits to conduct commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps in Santa Monica’s parks, including historic Palisades Park.

Effective January 1, a city permit will be required for trainers seeking to provide commercial fitness instruction in those locations.

Following is a message from “Save Chain Reaction” which was endorsed by the NOMA board of directors at our November meeting.

Help Save Our SculpturePaul Conrad's iconic Chain Reaction public art sculpture located next to the Civic Auditorium in Santa Monica belongs to ALL of us. But it may not be there for much longer. The City plans to scrap this significant work of art by Pulitzer Prize winning LA Times cartoonist and sculptor Paul Conrad if $400,000 is not raised by Feb. 1, 2014 to save it. This Santa Monica landmarked sculpture is recognized by the Smithsonian Institution as important, and is supported by the Los Angeles Conservancy and the Santa Monica Conservancy. Its message of peace remains relevant today.

That is why we are urging you to help save Chain Reaction.

If Chain Reaction disappears, we lose:• an irreplaceable work of public art • a monument to peace and nuclear disarmament • a Santa Monica landmark

Big Blue Bus Survey - You may want to participate in the Big Blue Bus survey that asks residents to describe what kind of service they think should be provided to access the future Expo Light Rail. You can access the survey online at this link:

November 20, 2013 -- The board of directors of the North of Montana Association (NOMA) today voted unanimously to oppose the current proposal for development of the Bergamot site. We see the proposed project as far too big and too dense for the site, and we feel that it would cause unacceptable traffic problems that would degrade the quality of life of both the immediate neighborhood and the city as a whole.

In a recent meeting with officials from the development firm Hines, the company's proposal was opposed by representatives of all the city's neighborhood organizations, Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMMRR), and Santa Monicans for a Liveable City (SMCLC).

Following is our letter to the Planning Commission.

---

To: Santa Monica Planning Commission

From: Board of Directors, North of Montana Association (NOMA)

RE: 11/20/13 agenda item 8-A -- Bergamot Transit Village Center

The Board of Directors of the North of Montana Association (NOMA) strongly opposes the current version of the Bergamot Transit Village Center. The project needs to be drastically reduced. It's too tall, it's too dense, there's too much office space, the amount of office space per employee was incorrectly calculated, and the project will generate way too much traffic in an area that is already at gridlock. Only a greatly reduced project with much less office space, and much less trip generation, would be acceptable.

We heartily endorse the statement by Friends of Sunset Park, which follows here.

____

We have looked through the EIR and, out of hundreds of DEIR comment letters from governmental agencies, neighborhood organizations in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles, and many, many individuals, only one letter was in support of the project. The current proposal includes the following to replace the 200,000 sq ft Papermate factory:--766,908 sq ft in total (50% larger than Santa Monica Place)-- 374,434 sq ft of office space (further exacerbating the city’s jobs/housing imbalance)-- Heights up to 84 ft (the same as the Water Garden, which many of us feel is too tall)-- 7,585 new daily car trips estimated in the EIRThe proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impact at 25 intersections, including:-- 23rd/Walgrove at Rose Avenue & Venice Blvd.,--Cloverfield at Santa Monica Blvd., -- 28th/Stewart at Olympic Blvd.,--Centinela at Colorado, Olympic, I-10 freeway westbound ramps, & Venice Blvd.,-- Bundy at Olympic, Pico, Ocean Park Blvd., & National, and-- Barrington at Wilshire, Santa Monica Blvd., & Olympic;1) Caltrans wrote in 2012 that existing average daily traffic on the I-10 Santa Monica Freeway is 192,000 in the vicinity of the project, and that "the project will have significant traffic impact."

2) The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) wrote in 2012 that, "The project should be directed to remove these impacts through either a scaled reduction or land-use reconfiguration of the project."

3) Another comment in the EIR noted that "By the DEIR's own admission, the project is in an area that is largely built out, and many of the surrounding intersections operate at or near capacity....The city and applicant should consider alternatives or project reductions which would result in less traffic impacts."

4) The jobs-housing imbalance in our city, which has resulted from more than 9 million sq ft of office/commercial development since the 1984 LUCE was adopted, has created tremendous congestion on streets in Santa Monica and West LA, as well as the I-10 and 405 freeways. A key goal of the LUCE is to "reduce future traffic congestion" and "reduce regional commercial uses." The proposed Hines project violates these basic principles by a) adding 375,000 sq ft of office/commercial uses, and b) increasing traffic congestion.

5) Hines apparently estimated traffic and parking based on 286 sq ft per office employee. Meanwhile, a survey posted by the Wall Street Journal in 2012 states that "The average for all companies for square feet per worker in 2017 will be 151 square feet. Therefore,new daily car trips generated by the project could be closer to 15,000 rather than 7,585.

In the Sunset Park neighborhood, all of our east-west "through" streets (Pico, Pearl, and Ocean Park Blvd.) are congested/gridlocked many hours of the day, not just from 5 to 6 PM, or whatever staff considers the PM peak hour.

Our only north-south "through" streets (23rd and Lincoln) are also congested/gridlocked many hours of the day. Frustrated motorists take every possible side street and alley to try to get to and from work, schools, and homes, endangering pedestrians and other drivers.

On some streets we have cars idling in front of our homes for hours at a time, making it impossible to get in and out of driveways. FedEx diesel trucks use our residential streets and alleys to come and go from their headquarters in the Marina, fouling our air.

Residents have difficulty getting to and from work. Parents have difficulty getting their children to school, after school activities, music lessons, and CIF games. People with health problems have difficulty getting to and from doctors’ offices. Doctors and other local health workers find it impossible to get to professional meetings at UCLA and elsewhere. Another resident has written about getting stuck in traffic for an hour and watching her pet die before she could reach a nearby vet clinic.

Is this what the LUCE meant by "preserving residential neighborhoods"? We think not. We already have the Santa Monica Business Park and Santa Monica College in our neighborhood, as well as cut-through traffic from the hospital district, the Special Office District, and the Cloverfield entrance/exit on the I-10 freeway. Our neighborhood cannot handle more traffic.

For these reasons, we strongly oppose the current Bergamot Transit Village Center. Only a greatly reduced project with much less office space, and much less trip generation, would be acceptable.

Santa Monica police have arrested a suspect in the recent rash of smash-and-grab burglaries on Montana Avenue, and are continuing to investigate.

Writing in Surfsantamonica.com, Jason Islas reports that Ronald Perkins, 55, was arrested Thursday. "At this time (Perkins) has been arrested in connection with the burglaries,” SMPD Spokesperson Sergeant Jay Moroso told The Lookout. “That doesn't mean that he's the only one out there.”

In what merchants say is likely the biggest burglary spree on Montana Avenue in more than three decades, six stores were targeted between November 6 and 11. The stores had their windows smashed and their cash registers broken open. SMPD sources told NOMA that two similar burglaries occurred on Lincoln Boulevard and Main Street in the same time frame.

Islas noted that the rash of break-ins roused the concern of the North of Montana Association (NOMA), which interviewed area merchants and sent out email alerts urging neighbors to be vigilant.

Several merchants told NOMA they are concerned that criminals are targeting the neighborhood because Santa Monica Police Department staffing patterns are concentrating patrols in downtown areas and at the pier, away from Montana Avenue.

The City has posted its Draft Zoning Ordinance, and the public now has a month to look at it before the document begins to undergo public review in hearingsbefore the Planning Commission and City Council.

This important document has not been revised since 1988. The finalized version will form the basis of development decisions in this city for many years to come.

We at NOMA have learned that there has been a rash of break-ins on Montana Ave. over the past week, and we'd like to alert everyone to be aware and vigilant of what is going on around you.

After talking with merchants, we have learned that there were five break-ins on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. In each of those cases, someone broke through a door or window, gained access to a store and made away with between $100 and $200 in cash. The stores hit last week were Number One Beauty, Andrew's Cheese, Palmetto, SemiPrecious and Citron.

Jack Tour, who has owned Number One Beauty for 28 years, said his store was robbed at about 1:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning. The other four stores were robbed between 2 and 4 a.m. on Thursday, November 7.

Then, Sunday night, another store was hit: Cheeky Chic, a pop-up store at 1624 Montana Avenue. After gaining entry by smashing the glass in the front door, someone stole designer leather goods with a retail value estimated at about $4,000.

Montana merchants are saying that this is the largest sweep of burglaries on stores along the avenue that anyone can remember over the past thirty years. Several said they are concerned that criminals are targeting the neighborhood because Santa Monica Police Department staffing patterns are concentrating patrols in downtown areas, away from Montana Avenue.

Scott McGee. the Santa Monica Police Department's neighborhood resource officer for our area, tells us there have also been at least one recent window smash burglary each on Wilshire and on Main Street. Officer McGee says officers are coming in outside of their normal working hours to work these cases. "It's important to us and just a matter of time" before the suspect or suspects are apprehended, he said. We will provide additional details as we get them. Neighbors are advised to notify police promptly if they notice anything suspicious. Dial 911 in an emergency; otherwise, the Santa Monica Police Department's non-emergency number is: 310-458-8491.

Thanks to All Who Shared park concernsWith Council Members Davis, Winterer and McKeown

November 8, 2013 -- Many thanks to all the concerned residents who turned out at the monthly NOMA meeting to share their concerns about the Council's recent vote to permit commercial training in historic Palisades Parkwith Council Members Gleam Davis, Ted Winterer and Kevin McKeown. The proposed ordinance had drawn sharp criticism from a coalition of all the city's seven neighborhood groups, as well as the Recreation & Parks Commission and the Landmarks Commission.

Many NOMA members and friends rose to ask the Council Members to reverse their decision, saying that Palisades Park is a unique, tranquil and irreplaceable haven for quiet contemplation and the enjoyment of nature.

Council Members Davis and Winterer urged residents to give the ordinance a chance to work, and said they anticipated the ordinance would give the city an opportunity to impose order on the iconic gateway. Davis also said she felt it would be impossible to ban commercial uses from the park, citing her observation of movie shoots and a recent children's birthday held there. McKeown said he opposed the use of Palisades Park by trainers, but supported the ordinance because he felt that some regulation would be better than nothing at all.

NOMA resident and attorney Stan Epstein said the Council had approved a poorly drafted ordinance that would not be able to effectively regulate the use of the park without extensive revisions. (See Bill Bauer's column outlining Epstein's objections here.) Phil Brock, chair of the city's Recreation and Parks Commission, said recent changes in city staffing make it unlikely that the ordinance will be effectively enforced in any case, because park rangers have been assigned other duties that keep them away from Palisades Park.

NOMA board members said they would continue to coordinate with other neighborhood groups to seek solutions to citywide concerns about commercial use of scarce city park land.

It's official. Council Votes to AllowCommercial Fitness in Palisades Park

You might have thought the parks ordinance went down to defeat on Tuesday. You would have been right. But only briefly. In a 3-3 tie, the City Council failed to pass the proposed ordinance that allowed commercial fitness trainers in city parks. The proposed ordinance had drawn sharp criticism from a coalition of all the city's seven neighborhood groups, as well as the Recreation & Parks Commission and the Landmarks Commission (see below). Council Members McKeown, Holbrook and Vazquez voted against the measure, with Mayor O'Connor and Council Members Davis and Winterer voting for it. With Council Member Terry O'Day absent, the ordinance appeared to be dead. For a while. Then about half an hour later, Council member McKeown made a motion to reconsider. By the time it was all over, the parks ordinance permitting commercial training that had died earlier was revived and passed in a 4-2 vote. McKeown's "yes" vote was joined by O'Connor, Winterer and Davis; Opposed were Holbrook and Vazquez. Council Member Terry O'Day was still absent. McKeown said he strongly opposed commercial training in Palisades Park and termed the ordinance "inadequate," but argued that it was better than nothing in offering some protection to the city's parks. Both Vazquez and Holbrook, who voted against the ordinance, joined McKeown in voicing strong opposition to commercial training in Palisades Park. Vazquez favored asking city staff to redraw the ordinance to include stronger restrictions on trainers in Palisades Park. Holbrook said he had received an avalanche of complaints from the public on the issue. "I have had my rear end chewed out up one side and down the other about Palisades Park and what we're doing to it with the trainers there, " he said. "I have had leaders of neighborhood organizations saying, 'What is wrong with you people? Aren't you listening?' ... It's been loud. It's been continuous -- it's probably the loudest thing I've heard since the tree issue and shrubbery issues and the fence issue ... it's a big, big thing brewing in the community. It's erupting. All I wanted to do was protect Palisades Park." Council Member McKeown later sent out an email explaining his actions, which is attached here. See also the analysis of the night's activities by Peggy Clifford at the Santa Monica Dispatch here. The video of the council meeting is on the council's website here. The reconsideration of the parks matter begins at about 4:06. Many, many thanks to everyone for all your good work on this issue. The neighborhood groups stood united in seeking curbs to commercialism in our parks, and we found out which council members were listening. The newly approved ordinance takes effect in 30 days. The next phase will likely involve working with the city to monitor the situation, and insisting that enforcement be properly funded and implemented in all city parks. We will share more information as it becomes available.

The Boards of NOMA,Northeast Neighbors, Wilmont and Mid City Neighbors have joined in calling upon City Council to reconsider its decision to allow commercial fitness trainers to operate profit-making businesses in landmarked Palisades Park. Our message: "Ban all commercial fitness activity from Palisades Park." The letter follows here.TO: The members of the Santa Monica City Council CC: Media contacts, City Manager, Santa Monica Conservancy, Friends of Palisades Park, Parks and Recreation Commission, Landmarks Commission FROM: The North of Montana Association; Santa Monica Northeast Neighbors; Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition; Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors; SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 4.55 of the Municipal Code Related to Commercial Fitness at Palisades Park – Council action on October 8, 2013 We are writing to express our extreme disappointment with the City Council’s provisional vote last week to adopt an ordinance that would allow commercial fitness instruction, classes and camps in Palisades Park. We regard commercialization of Palisades Park as a betrayal of the public trust. Please reconsider your decision. Palisades Park is more than a municipal resource. It is a national treasure, America’s gateway to the Pacific, a cherished view corridor that daily welcomes thousands of people, both local residents and visitors from all over the world. More than 120 years ago, Santa Monica founders Sen. John P. Jones and Arcadia Bandini de Baker donated the park for the public’s enjoyment. Ever since then, it has been a treasured and tranquil spot for walking, running, strolling, biking, picnicking, exercising, admiring the sunset and sitting in silent contemplation. Sadly, Council’s action has soiled that vital legacy. We are now faced with the prospect of city-authorized private businesses using Palisades Park land for profit-making purposes that directly contradict the original intent of our founders. If the ordinance is enacted as currently written, private businesses will be free to use taxpayer-supported lands as their private fiefs, interfering with the public’s use and enjoyment of the historic lands that make up Palisades Park. Under the measure that received provisional approval from the Santa Monica City Council last week, members of the public would be barred from the use of four newly designated “commercial group training zones” for up to 15 hours a day, 6 days a week, from 6 a.m. to 9 pm. And during that time, the quiet beach sounds of breezes and birds that have characterized this precious land from the time of the Tongva and before would be drowned out by loud rock music and the noise of trainers shouting instructions. “Tweet, tweet” would be replaced by “Hut, hut.” Tranquility and silent contemplation would be banished. Is commercial activity an appropriate use for this precious strip of land? Let us put the question another way. Would it be acceptable to license commercial trainers to hold profit-making classes on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.? Should commercial trainers profit from holding fitness classes in front of the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial? Clearly not. Nor should they be allowed to operate their businesses in Palisades Park. The argument made before Council, that banning fitness classes in the park would be “elitist,” we think ignores the larger point. We would argue that it is “elitist” to offer prime park enjoyment to those who are fit enough, wealthy enough and athletic enough to participate in organized fitness classes, depriving everyone else of the means to enjoy the park as they desire. Palisades Park belongs to everyone – not just those who enjoy commercial fitness classes, and those who would profit by using taxpayer-funded land to support their businesses. Please reconsider your decision.Ban all commercial fitness activity from Palisades Park. Thank you. Sincerely, The Board of Directors, North of Montana Association The Board of Directors, Santa Monica Northeast Neighbors The Board of Directors, Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition The Board of Directors, Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors For more on the history of Palisades Park, see: LA Times article, 2010: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/local/la-me-adv-palisades-park-20100609 City Landmark Assessment Report, 2007: http://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/Landmarks-Commission/2007/20070312/Palisades%20Park%20Landmark%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

October 9, 2013 -- Santa Monica City Council voted 5-1 last night to approve a measure that will permit commercial trainers to operate in Palisades Park and other city parks. The measure bars trainers from Palisades Park on Sunday, and imposes sliding fees for trainers. A surcharge was placed on fees for trainers who operate in Palisades Park.

Voting in favor of the measure were Council members Kevin McKeown, Ted Winterer, Bob Holbrook, Gleam Davis and Terry O'Day, with Council member Tony Vazquez voting against. Mayor Pam O'Connor was absent.

The vote followed a failed effort by Council member McKeown to add Palisades Park to a list of city parks in which commercial trainers would be prohibited from operating. McKeown's motion was seconded by Council member Vazquez, and failed to gain a majority. Voting in favor of McKeown's motion were Council members McKeown, Vazquez and Holbrook; opposed were Davis, Winterer and O'Day.

The North of Montana Association has consistently opposed the idea of allowing commercial trainers to use Palisades Park for profit-making businesses. (See letter below.)

Following the vote, Council Member McKeown sent the following email to NOMA representatives:

I tried tonight to stop all commercial training in Palisades Park, making a motion to add Palisades to the list of parks where all training is prohibited. There just weren't the votes. With six Councilmembers on the dais, the closest we got was a 3-3 stalemate.

I tried to move the rest of the licensing scheme forward, but with a one year moratorium on any use of Palisades Park. Again, a 3-3 deadlock.

What finally passed was a program prohibiting commercial use of Palisades Park on Sunday (I wanted all weekend, but, again, couldn't get a majority of four votes) and with a 50% surcharge for trainers on permits for Palisades Park, which may be an incentive for them to use other parks, particularly Reed Park where there is a discount on permits.

Thank you to those who came and testified, or wrote to the Council via email. You changed my mind, but needed to change one more.

We are writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the recommendation which comes before you tonight in Agenda Item 7A, which would allow commercial fitness or athletic activities in Palisades Park and other city parks.

As you know, The North of Montana Association has urged rejection of this idea in the past. So have both the Recreation and Parks Commission and the Landmarks Commission.

And now we have learned that the city staff has met and negotiated with the Fitness Trainers Coalition to arrive at this so-called compromise, but not with NOMA or the other above-named commissions.

To say that this is distressing is a vast understatement.

The city staff has failed to include in their talks the very organizations which represent the primary stakeholders here – the residents, voters and taxpayers of our city.

We ask you: How can such a recommendation go forward without the participation of the stakeholders? Why is the staff honoring the wishes of a small but vocal group of fitness or athletic trainers who are conducting profit-making business on City property?

We also have grave reservations about the application of this proposed staff recommendation with regard to other city parks. We would be prepared to discuss them with city representatives in the event that a genuine “negotiation” might ever take place.

Among our concerns are the following:

-- Designated areas – The designated areas as proposed put an unfair burden on the North of Montana neighborhood. This is unacceptable.

--Enforceability – We strongly question whether the City can and will enforce these regulations. What is the impact on staffing?

-- Size of classes -- 15 maximum. This is a large group. What is the justification for this number? Has this been driven by the trainer coalition?

--Weight of equipment -- 25 pounds max. What does this mean? 25 pounds per participant? Per class? A 25-pound weight is heavy and will damage turf. Please prohibit all equipment in all city parks, or substantially reduce the weight limit and clarify how that weight limit is determined. Again, Staff recommendation seems to be driven by the trainer coalition. And enforceability will always be an issue.

-- Time restrictions -- 6 am start time. This will place an undue burden of noise and congestion on designated areas that are adjacent to residential areas and apartments. This start time is clearly another response to trainers, not residents.

--Permit fees -- $100/year, 15% of gross receipts per quarter. This seems inadequate to cover the cost of repairing the damage that will surely result from intense park use. What is the justification for $100, vs. $200 or any other amount? What is the enforcement mechanism?

--Education -- Any proposal under discussion should include a requirement that trainers undergo an orientation with regard to the history and features of Palisades Park, emphasizing its importance as a Santa Monica Landmark and the need to protect the features and landscape of this world-class park.

--Anticipated revenue -- Staff's projected revenue source of $63,000 would hardly seem to cover the expenses that the City will incur for administration, enforcement and increased park maintenance for this new program. It is also astonishing to note that the $63,000 to the General Fund has already been included in the adopted 2013-2014 budget, even prior to the adoption of the Staff-recommended program.

In conclusion, we urge you to reject the proposal before you. Do not allow commercial trainers to operate in historic Palisades Park or nearby Goose Egg Park under any circumstances. If further consideration of this matter is merited as regards other city parks, the city must consult with the true stakeholders here: the residents.